In his most recent column, entitled “Stalked by Stupidity,” Roger Kimball has demonstrated two sad but undeniable truths about the New York Times. I suspect readers already know them, but they’re worth stating out loud since the Times’s editors reinforce them daily with new, ever more vulgar examples: (1) when it comes to race, the paper is willing to print anything so long as it bolsters The Narrative of the Evil White Society; and (2) the Times is far, far out of touch with how the average human being perceives reality.

Roger couldn’t have picked a piece that better proves the obsolescence of the phrase “newspaper of record.” Entitled “Young, Black, Male, and Stalked by Bias,” and written by someone with the aristocratic news-anchor name of Brent Staples, the op-ed begins with a thought experiment that is supposed to show us how inveterately racist we (he means whites) all are. Forgive me for making you read the following lines once again:

“The door to the subway train slides open, revealing three tall, young black men, crowding the entrance, with hooded sweatshirts pulled up over downward-turned faces; boxer shorts billowing out of over-large, low-slung jeans; and sneakers with the laces untied.

Your response to the look — and to this trio on the subway — depends in part on the context, like the time of day, but especially on how you feel about young, male blackness.

If it unsettles you — as it does many people — you never get beyond the first impression. But those of us who are not reflexively uncomfortable with blackness . . .”

Since Roger has already shown, by way of common sense, why Staples’s piece fulfills proposition (1) mentioned above, allow me to elaborate on proposition (2).

It never fails: whenever our society begins cannibalizing itself in “discussions” of race and crime, the last thing to be talked about, if it’s mentioned at all, is basic human psychology. When the latest case, the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, seized the news cycle, we all were shackled to the persistent narrative that what happened to Martin was racial profiling and stereotyping. Forget for a moment that every piece of evidence available to the public tells a different story. Forget for a moment, too, that we know and can demonstrate that the media have tampered with that evidence in a desperate, flailing attempt to hold on to The Narrative.

Forget all that. Nobody is talking about that three-ton elephant with the top hat and cane, his rubbery rump parked on the living-room floor: I have seen not one column, not one discussion, not one moment’s worth of the media’s increasingly irrelevant time devoted to body language and fear perception in humans.

This may have something to do with how abstract the topic is. It is not always so easy to articulate what danger looks like, but it is pretty easy to describe what it feels like. Our bodies go through very specific biochemical and neurochemical responses when we feel endangered. In the combat system I study, we are taught a color-coded system of four “levels” of danger awareness, similar to the federal government’s terrorist warning system. To wit:

White – Safe. No threats or danger perceived.
Yellow – Aware. A threat or danger is possible but not present.
Orange – A threat or danger is likely. Butterflies in your stomach.
Red – Immediate danger. The fight is on.

Other systems may have more colors, or fewer, but the idea is always the same. To give concrete examples of each color-state: White would be lounging in your air-conditioned living room on a hot summer day, icy beer in hand. Unless you are paranoid, there is no reason to think you are in danger. Yellow is walking to your car in the mall parking garage. You are aware that something could happen, but not paranoid, and no threats seem present. Orange is walking in that same parking lot later at night and seeing, out of the corner of your eye, someone leering at you and following you. The mental alarm bells begin to ring; danger feels imminent. Red is when that someone pulls a knife on you.

As we progress from white to red, as it were, the biochemical response is always the same. Your heart rate goes up, you start to sweat, a wave of heat comes over you (I always feel it in my feet first), your vision gets more blurry, you lose fine motor skills. This last aspect of physiology is why it’s very unlikely you’ll be able to pull off fancy martial-arts moves in a real, chaotic self-defense situation: you are pretty much neurologically incapable of doing so. The blood rushes to your muscles, getting them ready for action and depriving other body systems (vision and hearing, for instance) of the energy and nutrients needed to function optimally. In what’s called an adrenaline dump, your adrenal medulla releases epinephrine directly into your bloodstream, dulling your pain sensitivity but also producing side effects like uncontrollable shaking, time distortion, tunnel vision, etc.

This basic biochemistry is why deadly police shootings always leave liberals scratching their heads and wondering how the cops fired 50 rounds instead of the more progressive 2 or 3. In the middle of an adrenaline dump, it’s difficult to control your trigger finger. Those same cops will probably swear they only fired one or two shots each, but an examination of their weapons afterwards always shows that they nearly emptied their magazines. Most people, myself included, have never had to point a 9mm at someone who’s charging at them with an icepick. Most people (yes, even experienced officers) will panic and start firing blindly.

You’ll notice I haven’t mentioned race yet. That’s because it’s irrelevant. For the average person, what produces these biochemical responses has nothing to do with a person’s skin color but everything to do with body language and other related variables.

What has been missing from all the “discussions” of race taking place over the past month or so is how body language, dress, and demeanor mix and create an image of someone that we either want to welcome or avoid. The term “racial profiling” is too often a thought-terminating cliche designed to halt any discussion of how all humans evaluate potentially dangerous situations. What most often happens is that, upon seeing someone, we react to their movement and demeanor much more than skin color. Body language and eye contact mean everything. This goes for blacks and whites and everyone else: if someone struts around (with that walk that is instantly identifiable) glaring at everyone they see, you should avoid them. They are looking for trouble. If you’re stupid enough to wander into their path because you’re afraid of being seen as “intolerant,” that’s your problem, jack.

Nobody, save for the most hardened racist, feels threatened by the black commuter on the train wearing the suit and sipping the coffee like everyone else. Everyone, however, feels threatened by the white guy with the anti-social thousand-yard stare and the Sig Rune tattoo–or the black guy with the “F*ck the Police” t-shirt and the obnoxious strut. They have chosen to craft particular images of themselves to create particular responses in others. We ought not to be surprised, therefore, when they get those particular responses. When we assess a situation for potential trouble, we are, without knowing it, calculating and considering dozens of variables–not only body language and eye contact, but location, distance, clothing style, etc.

Skin color, if it plays a part, is minor, except for those who choose to make it otherwise, such as the New York Times.

Robert Wargas is a contributor to PJ Media. A native of Long Island, he was educated at the City University of New York and Yale University, and has also written for The Daily Telegraph of London and The Weekly Standard.
Outside of opinion writing, he has worked as a professional historian for a major research laboratory and university, documenting the history of biotechnology since the 1970s. He has also reported for both weekly and daily newspapers, including Newsday.
He maintains a personal blog/website at robertwargas.org. Follow him on Twitter @RobertWargas

Click here to view the 10 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

10 Comments, 6 Threads

If Trayvon Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman following him why didn’t he call 911 on his cell phone? If Trayvon’s girlfriend was concerned about his safety then why didn’t she phone police? Then again why didn’t the fleet footed football player who was way ahead of Zimmerman on the path leading back to Brenda Green’s house return there to tell his dad about the big bad man who was suspiciously following him? Why instead did Trayvon run somewhere else eluding Zimmerman who lost sight of him, when he could have easily returned home?

Click my name for the answers to these and other vital questions on the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Good question. Maybe other people have asked it, but I haven’t seen it. Also, if you think you are being followed by someone trying to harm you, a good thing to do is start jogging. If they start jogging too, then you know you’re in trouble.

I never really thought about that. It makes sense, though worthless otherwise. If I had a gun I might feel emboldened to stand my ground or even begin a verbal confrontation. It would make no sense to get involved in a physical struggle. I could lose the gun by having it discovered or fall out and used against me. Or I just couldn’t use it myself.

True, it’s total speculation on my part. But, I would like to think that, if I had a gun, I would try to keep some distance between myself and the other person.

“If I had a gun I might feel emboldened to stand my ground or even begin a verbal confrontation.”

Both Zimmerman and Trayvon’s girlfriend agree that words were exchanged before the confrontation, although the actual conversation seems to differ. Zimmerman claims that Trayvon said, “well, you do now.”, and then attacked him. Trayvon’s girlfriend claims that Zimmerman said, “What are you doing around here?”, and then she doesn’t know what initiated the physical confrontation.

So, why didn’t Trayvon tell his girlfriend that some crazy guy just pulled a gun on him?

“The door to the subway train slides open, revealing three tall, young black men, crowding the entrance, with hooded sweatshirts pulled up over downward-turned faces; boxer shorts billowing out of over-large, low-slung jeans; and sneakers with the laces untied.”

Biochemistry and the “fight or flight” impulse are persuasive reasons why people may react negatively to the tableau presented by Brent Staples. (Can’t wait until he’s anchoring the CBS Evening News.)

However I would like to propose another – The garb and mannerisms depicted here ARE INTENDED TO PRODUCE INTIMIDATION. Here we move from biochemistry to anthropology. The oversized hoodie, the baggy pants, the loud talk and the sweeping gestures (that take up a lot of room) have the effect of making the subject LOOK BIGGER! This is quite common in nature where a creature will “puff themselves up” in size either to deter attack or to gain dominance over other species around them. In nature, generally speaking, “bigger is better.”

The oversized clothes trace theeir origins to prison life where baggy garments are used to conceal weapons and contraband. Much urban slang is taken from prison lingo which is, once again, loud, profane and meant to intimidate the listener. Our culture has been indoctrinated int hte belief that prison inmates are all maniacally tough and savage. (Which isn’t true by a long shot.) As a result of the bigger profile achieved by oversized clothing and hte use of language we associate with aggression the “urban tough” seeks to totally emotionally subjugate those in his immediate area snd gain dominance without “firing a shot.” If you are in a subway or an enclosed area then “flight” is not usually available. The only other recourse is fear AND THIS IS THE RESPONSE THAT THE ENTIRE PERFORMANCE IS INTENDED TO PROVOKE! Also the intimidation factor is ratcheted up when the toughs appear in a small group. In Mr. Staples thought experiment the passengers on the train all know that the three young men are part of a group that will defend each other and act as a unit. The lone subway rider reading his New York Times cannot emot9ionally count on the same support from his fellow passengers.

Also, if you look away and try to bury yourself in your newspaper then the intimidator knows that he has won. If you look directly at him then he will usually say “What the f__k you looking at?’ The sudden savage nature of the comment on top of the existing visual image is intended to make “looker” fearful.

Yet this is not the end. Let’s assume that the intimidator is confronted. The onlooker says “You’re causing so much noise I couldn’t help but look.” This escalates into shouting and confrontation. Now the intimidator must “Put up or shut up.” Often this will be followed by comment like “Shit Man – Punk like you ain’t worth the trouble.” However if the intimidator has his honor on the line he will have to take it up a notch and make a definite threat. (I’m going to beat your ass.”)

At this point the onlooker/victim may be authorized to use force since a threat of bodily harm has been amde by someone who is a credible threat.

Urban youth culture (it applies to blacks and whites) is based on the cornerstone of intimidating those around them. When human relations are based on this foundation then it is a very short hop to actual violence and bodly harm whether intended or not. “Community activitists” have a lot to answer for since they openly approve of this cultural gambit and encourage it.

As a modest proposal I sugges the whlesale giveaway of t-shits, pins, and lapel buttons that all say “I AM NOT INTIMIDATED BY YOU.” I wonder what the result would in Mr. Staples scenario if everyone on the subway train was wearing something like that.

An excellent book that I read some time ago, of which I have forgotten the title, discussed exactly this issue. It also went into some detail about the capacity of the human mind to pick out and compile indications of danger even on a subconscious level, as well as recalling some truly fascinating examples. One of which I will never forget: It recalled a young woman who made the mistake of accepting a stranger’s help carrying her things up to her apartment; he proceeded to assault and rape her, keeping her quiet with the promise that he would let her live if she didn’t scream. When he got up to go to the other room, instead of believing him she ran out the door as fast as she could. The police later determined that he had murdered several women in like fashion, and she was lucky to escape alive. What tipped her off, you ask? Before he went to the other room, presumably to get a weapon, he closed the window. She later understood that the purpose was to muffle any noise she might make during her murder, but at the time it only made her react on a subconscious level.

This capacity is the origin of the Japanese notions of “killing intent”, that a would-be killer will have great difficulty concealing his intentions, broadcast by his body language and other factors, from an observant would-be victim.